On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:26:12 GMT, T i m wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:59:30 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


But that's their choice. They pay for it by virtue of higher car and
fuel taxes and costs.

But mile for mile, 'don't we all pay for it' environmentally?

One can say that about virtually anything.

Could you explain though please Andy?

Of course. Simple. Virtually everything that we do has some
environmental impact.


I was saying that if a car does
say 25 mpg it will do half as many miles and create twice as much
pollution as one that does 50 mpg (all things being equal), the 25 mpg
car will also be consuming our (valuable) oil at twice the rate (so it
will last half as long)?

That's obvious but a very simplistic view.

One reason I believe it's not being rationed
now is because the government earn too much money from taxing it.

Of course. People will insist on voting for governments and policies
requiring a high take and spend of tax.

We
were told that there was so much oil in the North sea that we would
all get town gas free .. never happened here (and I believe we are
steaming the last dregs out of some of our oil fields right now?). And
why do we fight so hard in some places (Falklands) and not others ..
oil reserves possibly?

Could well be.




Now don't get me wrong, I own (bult) a 1978 1300 Escort based kut car
that currently does 25 mpg and with a poor emissions engine, however
it is used infrequently and for short trips so probably 'pollutes'
less / year than even the best 'catted' vehicle (in fact has only done
500 miles over the last couple of years).

This is self justification. The amount of use doesn't excuse a moral
position.

True, and I'm currently in two minds re scrapping it. However, even
doing that has it's envionmental impact? I have never claimed to be
blame free in any of this, it's all about doing what you can when you
have the choice (isn't it?).

The important thing is having the choice and not having the government
make the choice.



I could make the same argument about my use of a diesel 4x4. When I
am in the UK, I mainly work at home, so mileage is low and I could
make the same argument. I don't. I like to drive it, I am happy
to pay for the fuel and road tax and that is that. I don't need my
life run for me.

I'm not trying to 'run your life' Andy, but do you not agree your
(our) actions have an impact on all of us? I have a 15 year old
daughter and I'm seriously concerned what sort of a world will be here
for her(and all of them) when we are long since gone?

Everybody's actions have some degree of impact on everybody else. It
would be better to focus on things that make a significant difference.




Now it might even end up
with my old 2L Pinto in there (giving slightly better mpg) but it will
at least be able to run unleaded (once sorted).

I hope you have your life insurance up to date or that you don't get
rear ended.....

I also ride a motorbike Andy .. I know the risks.


Can't see it happening though .. if you have the money to afford to
run / maintain such a beast even £1000 / year road tax and fuel at 10/
gallon with make them think about anyone than No1.


This is a bull**** argument.

It wasn't really an argument .. just my prediction ;-) 20 years ago
when I refrained from going into smoke filled places I predicted the
end to smoking in public places. It took it's time but it's getting
there. Ok, not for the reasons I hoped (health) but the insurance
implications. Dirty / uneconomic vehicles will be next along with
aircraft fuel. This will only happen of course when the cost of the
consequences outweighs the cost of the useage (in money not
environmental / moral terms).

Of course. That's why it's always better to take a positive look and
come up with a solution that is economically better and/or gives an
incentive to buy into it. This approach generally works. The
negative approach of disincenting that which is economically or
conveniently desirable but which has some environmental or other cost
doesn't work because it goes against the natural order of things and
****es people off.


I also use my mobile phone as little as
possible ..

Riiiighht.....



It isn't acceptable to expect people to
justify their personal choice of mode of transport if they are
prepared to pay for it.

But it's not just the cost is it Andy? You have already said there is
a 'moral position'.

Of course there is. But moral positions never fly unless the
economics work.



This is typical Livingstonesque focus on the
wrong issues just for the sake of propaganda and is not addressing the
real issues.

Well, I'm no expert (never said I was) so if you have some alternative
views (other than doing what you want and the rest of humanity can go
jump g) please put them forward (always willing to learn). For
example, what are the 'real issues' please?

In the case of congestion charging, which is where this started, the
real issue is outmoded business culture which insists on putting
people physically in one place and a city centre of all places to do
their work.



I've not been indoctrinated by anyone, I don't harass 4x4 drivers
outside the schools, I would just like to think folk consider their
actions / choices, be it about vehicle use, recycling / whatever? I
own an electic car, it was designed / built during the last big fuel
crisis when the cost of oil was going sky high but we had our own gas
/ coal reserves so could still generate electricity cheaply. As cars
have become more fuel efficient the viability (and 'greenness') of
electric vehicles become less tennable (so I don't use it).

All of these points are fine. The point is that people should have
the choice.


All the best .. and thanks for your time ..

T i m


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl